Bibliographic record
Abstract
GALERIE D'ART DU PETIT CHAMPLAIN (Thiberge) 1 has long struck me as perfectly poised to raise textbook issues of what is a "copy."The case arose out of the purchase of an authorized poster whose ink was then chemically removed (leaving the paper substrate blank); subsequently, the ink was transferred to a canvas without the copyright holder's permission.The Supreme Court of Canada's opinion included the memorable line denying that "Canadian copyright law lives in splendid isolation from the rest of the world" 2 (a fitting launching pad for some transnational observations), and also cited Professor David Vaver's scholarly works.3 Professor Vaver's retirement from Oxford University therefore provided the happy occasion to exhume the file and finally commit my ruminations on Thiberge to paper.'But a funny thing happened on the way to the filing cabinet.Pack rat that Iam, limitless detritus of past decades presented itself, relating to almost every country on earth, and raising a myriad of copyright conundrums.But nowhere to be found were all the snippets that I had laboriously collected regarding Canadian cases.So I started to resign myself to the unhappy fate of having been foiled again-until a mental light bulb flashed, and the trap into which I had fallen
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".